illocutionary force. Communication Theory , 20 (3), 249-268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2010.01362.x Dziedziewicz, D., & Karwowski, M. (2015). Development of children’s creative visual imagination: A theoretical model and enhancement programmes. Education 3-13, 43 (4), 382-392. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004279.2015.1020646 Fabri, M., Moore, D. J., & Hobbs, D. J. (2005, September). Empathy and enjoyment in instant messaging. In Proceedings of 19th British HCI group annual conference (HCI2005), Edinburgh, UK (pp. 4-9). Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of
Learn. Columbus: Merril Publishing. Runco, M. A. (1996). Personal Creativity: Definition and Developmental Issues. New Directions in Child Development, 72, 1-30. Runco, M. A. (2003). Education for Creative Potential. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3), 317-324. Runco, M. A., Millar, G., Acar, S., & Cramond, B. (2010). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking as Predictors of Personal and Public Achievement: A Fifty Year Follow-Up. Creativity Research Journal, 22(4), 361-368. Sawyer, R. K. (2003). Group creativity: Music, theater, collaboration. Mahwah
Based on Glăveanu’s target article, issues raised about the psychometric approach to creativity research are examined. Criticisms of divergent thinking tests, such as the unusual uses of an object test, are examined. Arguments supporting the theoretical and practical utility of divergent thinking tests are presented. It is furthermore suggested that tests are best conceived and used in contextualized ways. The example of measures of divergent thinking which were designed for managers is presented. Finally, the psychometric approach encompasses many aspects of creativity beyond divergent thinking, as illustrated by recent work on the evaluation of creative potential (the EPoC battery). In the EPoC assessment, both divergent-exploratory thinking and convergent-integrative thinking are measured in a range of contextual domains, such as the visual-graphic, verballiterary, social problem solving ones. This work contrasts with the simplistic, and restrictive view of the unusual uses of an object test as the epitome of the psychometric approach to creativity.
In this commentary, I applaud Glăveanu’s attempts to shake things up and introduce some much-needed disruption into the study of creativity. Glăveanu is a “ big thinker” and he is correct to worry about the growing fragmentation of the field. I share his concern that the so-called “ social psychology of creativity” really isn’t all that social. Most researchers and theorists continue to decontextualize creativity, giving little attention to the cultural and environmental factors that contribute to creativity of performance. Yet Glăveanu also presents some arguments with which I disagree. Most striking is his apparent misunderstanding of the purpose and functioning of the Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT). In addition, I am less surprised than is Glăveanu about the current state of our field. The same narrowing of research questions plagues every branch of the study of psychology. However, the tides may be changing. At the forefront of a reform movement are a number of creativity theorists and journal editors. My own hope is that as researchers are given license to expand their work to include a wide variety of experimental designs, methodologies and contexts, they will adopt as their core mission the promotion of the growth of creativity at the individual, group, societal and multi-cultural levels.
This commentary will take the form of a critical examination into the six research gaps identified by Glăveanu (2014a) in the article The Psychology of Creativity: A Critical Reading by examining carefully whether the proposed criticisms are supported by research evidence and will attempt to focus the discussion on accumulating knowledge of theories in the psychology of education. To consolidate theory construction in the psychology of creativity, researchers should give concise operational definitions that can be examined by reliable and valid measurements with identifiable units of analysis in general or specific participants. Given explicit evidence of this kind, educators can be best informed about how to define, assess, and develop human creativity when applying these theories.
In recent years, a move towards social, cultural-psychological and distributed research perspectives on creativity has been witnessed within the social- and human sciences. Glăveanu is one of the most prominent advocates for this new line of research. In the present commentary, I will share my concerns as to why this move is important and vital for the field of creativity research, but I will also raise my sense of fear by the proposed direction of model unity and coherence as suggested by Glăveanu. On the contrary, we may need to tolerate and respect the diversity of perspectives and enjoy the fruits of cross-disciplinarily research, not needing to reach any state of unity. In this sense, a way out of ‘crisis’ could be that we respect, variations and even differences, and instead of coherence establish meeting places and spots where divergent perspectives can be celebrated.
In responding to Glăveanu’s critical views on the psychology of creativity, this commentary summarizes seminal work that has been carried out on creativity since 1950s. It underscores the value of the systems approach and discusses key methodological issues related to this approach, including creativity assessment, the necessity for multi-level analyses, the bandwidth-fidelity-dilemma, the challenge of operationalizing creativity for empirical studies and the lack of communication across disciplines. It calls for more external support, cross-disciplinary and cross-cultural collaboration and the establishment of a more open, tolerant and creativity-conducive environment to encourage and unleash creativity in creativity research from creativity researchers.
The energy of a painting is born with every brush stroke. The vitality, the acerbity, the distance, the record of emotions in general - these are only a few elements of the reality in which a PAINTING is born. In the likeness of fulfilment together with the projection of dreams. A unique diary of passing thoughts that are written within a line and a dab, thoughts that would never find their way to a recipient if not for the genius of an attempt. An attempt to register a mood, the moments when one looks for respite, together with the moments infused with the fever of the creation of answers to a question of the order and the harmony. The meaning of creation, constant in its message. Give the best you may and can give, and you will get even more. May you, dear sir, keep living in a creative and unique way! May you, dear lady, keep living in a creative and unique way!
I fully subscribe to Glăveanu’s opinions. I am not a psychologist, but as someone who specialises in culture and at the same time, as a poet, I believe that if the psychology of creativity is to say something truthful about the creative process, it should open up to the inner life of artists and to statistically unmeasurable processes such as talent and inspiration, rather than devise and carry out laboratory experiments. Therefore, encouraged by Glăveanu to pose innovative questions, in my article I ask about the essence of poetic inspiration, that is able to create images and lies at the root of metaphor which emerges in the mind of an artist.